DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to Claim(s) 6 and 17, filed 11/04/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6-10, filed 11/04/2025, have been considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 11/04/2025, not the Non-Final Rejection filed 10/01/2025. Newly amended claims are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-14, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hagen et al., (hereafter Hagen) (US 11,001,037) in view of Ma (US 12,023,239).
With respect to Claim 1, Hagen teaches a composite pane (Figure 1) with electrically controllable optical properties (column 6, lines 50-53), comprising: an outer pane (1, Figure 1) and an inner pane (2, Figure 1) that are joined to one another areally (see Figure 1) via an intermediate layer (3, Figure 1); an electrochromic (column 6, lines 50-53) with electrically controllable optical properties (column 6, lines 50-53) within the intermediate layer (3, Figure 1) , wherein a total solar energy transmittance TTS (column 2, lines 57-62) (column 2, lines 57-62) in a darkened state of the electrochromic functional element (column 6, lines 50-53) is higher than in a bright state of the electrochromic functional element (column 6, lines 50-53) and/or an energy transmittance TE (column 2, lines 36-41) in the darkened state is higher than in the bright state; and an infrared protection layer (4, Figure 1) which has at least one silver-containing layer (4, Figure 1; two functional layers that at least contain silver or are made of silver, column 8, lines 56-61) and is applied or arranged on an interior-side surface (see Figure 1) of the inner pane (2, Figure 1) facing the intermediate layer (3, Figure 1), on an interior-side surface (see Figure 1) of the outer pane (1, Figure 1) facing the intermediate layer (3, Figure 1), or within the intermediate layer (3, Figure 1), which infrared protection layer (4, Figure 1) interacts with the electrochromic functional element (column 6, lines 50-53) such that the total solar energy transmittance TTS (column 2, lines 57-62) through the composite pane (Figure 1) in the darkened state is lower than in the bright state and/or the energy transmittance TE (column 2, lines 36-41) through the composite pane (Figure 1) in the darkened state is lower than in the bright state.
Hagen fails to teach wherein a light transmittance TL through the composite pane in the bright state of the electrochromic functional element is greater than or equal to 20%.
Hagen teaches a composite pane and Ma teaches an upgradable intraocular platform system comprising an optical stack. The composite pane and optical stack are equivalent.
Ma teaches light transmittance TL through the composite pane (optical stack, Figure 4D) in the bright state (voltage applied, column 35, lines 25-39) of the electrochromic functional element (electrolyte 105, Figure 4D; see also column 35, lines 4-11) is greater than or equal to 20% (light transmission level including, but not limited to 10%, 25%, 40%, 60% and 70%, column 35, lines 23-25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hagen having the composite pane with the teachings of Ma having light transmittance TL through the composite pane in the bright state of the electrochromic functional element is greater than or equal to 20% for the purpose of maximum relative transparency to maximum relative opacity, column 35, lines 37-39.
With respect to Claim 2, Hagen further teaches wherein the infrared protection layer (4, Figure 1) is arranged areally (see Figure 1) between the outer pane (1, Figure 1) and the electrochromic functional element (column 6, lines 50-53).
With respect to Claim 3, Hagen further discloses wherein the infrared protection layer (4, Figure 1) is applied on the surface of the outer pane (1, Figure 1) facing the intermediate layer (3, Figure 1) or on a polyethylene terephthalate layer (PET, column 8, lines 8-10), wherein the polyethylene terephthalate layer (PET, column 8, lines 8-10) with the infrared protection layer (4, Figure 1) is arranged within (3 is a carrier film (column 7, lines 61-66, and contains PET, column 8, lines 8-10) the intermediate layer (3, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 4, Hagen further teaches wherein the infrared protection layer (4, Figure 1) includes at least 2 silver layers (4, Figure 1; two functional layers that at least contain silver or are made of silver, column 8, lines 56-61).
With respect to Claim 5, Hagen further teaches wherein the total solar energy transmittance TTS (column 2, lines 57-62) of the composite pane (Figure 1) in the bright state of the electrochromic functional element (column 6, lines 50-53) is less than or equal to 35% (column 6, lines 27-36).
With respect to Claim 7, Hagen further teaches wherein an emissivity-reducing coating (column 4, lines 54-56) is applied areally (see Figure 1) on an exterior-side surface of the inner pane (2, Figure 1) facing away from intermediate layer (3, Figure 1).
With respect to Claim 8, Hagen further teaches wherein the emissivity-reducing coating (column 4, lines 54-56) comprises an electrically conductive oxide (TCO) (column 5, lines 5-16).
With respect to Claim 9, Hagen further teaches wherein the infrared protection layer (4, Figure 1) is designed to reflect incident infrared light (column 9, lines 1-9).
With respect to Claim 10, Hagen further teaches wherein the electrochromic functional element (column 6, lines 50-53) is arranged between two layers, that each comprise a material selected from the group consisting of polyvinyl butyral (PVB) (column 8, lines 46-48), ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA) (column 3, lines 40-44), polyurethane (PU) (column 3, lines 40-44), and cyclo-olefin polymer (COP) (column 3, lines 40-44).
With respect to Claim 11, Hagen further teaches wherein at least one of the two layers includes dye molecules for neutralizing the color (organic coatings have the advantage of higher color neutrality and higher light transmittance, column 4, lines 47-49) of the electrochromic functional element (column 6, lines 50-53).
With respect to Claim 12, Hagen further teaches wherein the at least one silver-containing layer (4, Figure 1; two functional layers that at least contain silver or are made of silver, column 8, lines 56-61) of the infrared protection layer (4, Figure 1) has a thickness of 5 nm to 50 nm (40-200 nm, column 5, lines 43-45).
With respect to Claim 13, Hagen further teaches wherein the outer pane (1, Figure 1) and/or the inner pane (2, Figure 1) contain or are made of soda lime glass (inner pane 2, contains soda lime glass, column 8, lines 44-46) and have a thickness of 0.5 mm to 15 mm (inner pane 2, has a thickness of 2.1 mm, column 8, lines 44-46).
With respect to Claim 14, Hagen teaches a method for producing a composite pane with an outer pane (1, Figure 1) and an inner pane (2, Figure 1) that are joined to one another areally (see Figure 1) via an intermediate layer (3, Figure 1), the method comprising: arranging or applying an infrared protection layer (4, Figure 1), having at least one silver-containing layer (4, Figure 1; two functional layers that at least contain silver or are made of silver, column 8, lines 56-61), on an interior-side surface (see Figure 1) of the outer pane (1, Figure 1) facing the intermediate layer (3, Figure 1), on an interior-side surface (see Figure 1) of the inner pane (2, Figure 1) facing the intermediate layer (3, Figure 1) , or within the intermediate layer (3, Figure 1), and arranging an electrochromic functional element (column 6, lines 50-53) with electrically controllable optical properties (column 6, lines 50-53) within the intermediate layer (3, Figure 1) , wherein the a total solar energy transmittance TTS (column 2, lines 57-62) in the a darkened state of the electrochromic functional element (column 6, lines 50-53) is higher than in the a bright state of the electrochromic functional element (column 6, lines 50-53) and/or the an energy transmittance TE (column 2, lines 36-41) in the darkened state is higher than in the bright state, wherein the infrared protection layer (4, Figure 1) interacts with the electrochromic functional element (column 6, lines 50-53) such that the total solar energy transmittance TTS (column 2, lines 57-62) through the composite pane (Figure 1) in the darkened state is lower than in the bright state and/or the energy transmittance TE (column 2, lines 36-41) through the composite pane (Figure 1) in the darkened state is lower than in the bright state.
Hagen fails to teach wherein a light transmittance TL through the composite pane in the bright state of the electrochromic functional element is greater than or equal to 20%.
Hagen teaches a composite pane and Ma teaches an upgradable intraocular platform system comprising an optical stack. The composite pane and optical stack are equivalent.
Ma teaches light transmittance TL through the composite pane (optical stack, Figure 4D) in the bright state (voltage applied, column 35, lines 25-39) of the electrochromic functional element (electrolyte 105, Figure 4D; see also column 35, lines 4-11) is greater than or equal to 20% (light transmission level including, but not limited to 10%, 25%, 40%, 60% and 70%, column 35, lines 23-25).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hagen having the composite pane with the teachings of Ma having light transmittance TL through the composite pane in the bright state of the electrochromic functional element is greater than or equal to 20% for the purpose of maximum relative transparency to maximum relative opacity, column 35, lines 37-39.
With respect to Claim 16, Hagen further teaches wherein the total solar energy transmittance TTS (column 2, lines 57-62) of the composite pane (Figure 1) in the bright state of the electrochromic functional element (column 6, lines 50-53) is less than or equal to 15% (column 6, lines 27-36).
With respect to Claim 18, Hagen further teaches wherein the electrically conductive oxide (TCO) (column 5, lines 5-16) is indium tin oxide (ITO) (column 5, lines 5-16).
With respect to Claim 19, Hagen further teaches wherein the at least one silver- containing layer (4, Figure 1; two functional layers that at least contain silver or are made of silver, column 8, lines 56-61) of the infrared protection layer (4, Figure 1) has a thickness of 8 nm to 25 nm (40-200 nm, column 5, lines 43-45).
With respect to Claim 20, Hagen further teaches wherein thickness of the composite pane is from 1 mm to 5 mm (outer pane 1 and the inner pane 2 contain soda lime glass and have in each case a thickness of 2.1 mm. The thermoplastic intermediate layer 3 contains or is made of polyvinyl butyral (PVB) and has a thickness of 0.76 mm; 2.1 + 2.1 + 0.76 = 4.96, column 8, lines 46-48).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hagen (US 11,001,037) in view of Ma (US 12,023,239), as applied to Claim 4, in further view of Kleinhempel et al., (hereafter Kleinhempel) (US 2015/0274584 A1).
With respect to Claim 15, Hagen in view of Ma teach the composite pane according to claim 4, wherein the infrared protection layer (4, Figure 1, of Hagen) includes silver layers (4, Figure 1; two functional layers that at least contain silver or are made of silver, column 8, lines 56-61, of Hagen).
Hagen in view of Ma fail to teach at least three silver layers.
Hagen teaches a composite pane and Ma teaches an upgradable intraocular platform system comprising an optical stack. The composite pane and optical stack are equivalent. Kleinhempel teaches a laminated glass comprising an optical stack.
Kleinhempel teaches at least three silver layers (4, Figure 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify Hagen in view of Ma having the composite pane with the teachings of Kleinhempel having at least three silver layers, for the purpose of additional thermal and radiant protection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872.
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872